Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[WorldWatcher]

Judges have all sorts of discretionary activities. They can swear in new attorneys instead of having the newbies wait for the mass swearing in at the Bar. If a judge said that he did not believe black people should be lawyers and therefore was choosing not to perform any private swearings at all everyone would understand immediately that this judge should not be on the bench. Even though there is no requirement that these ceremonies are part of judicial duties.

Wrong analogy as you are making a negative case and the judges actions are based on a positive case. A better representation would be:

"If the State of Texas barred black people from being lawyers and therefore the Judge was choosing not to perform ANY private swearings at all because private swearing in of lawyers is not a job requirement."​

>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

Of course, I just wanted to clarify so some nut ball didn't run with something we weren't even saying, but that's already been done anyway.

I too, practice the pre-emptive argument. It's quite good for outing the nutballs, and the intellectually lazy knee-jerkers.

This site's going to take some getting used to on my part. The last board I was a member of the people who posted actually read the threads and links within the threads that they were commenting on. It seems to me many here don't believe in having INFORMED opinions.

Sad, but I'm sure I'll adjust and be posting when I have no idea what I'm talking about in no time.

A lot of times, I will comment either with a joke or a gut reaction and then after reading some of the ongoing discussion, if the thread seems interesting I'll go read the article. I don't always read the article first. I'll read what's presented in the OP, but I won't go read the entire article.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Judges with that much bias don't belong in a job that requires more neutrality.

Explain how she is biased.

The judge did that quite well. I don't need to elaborate.

I can't help it if you are dense. The judge expressed a bias against the laws of the state. Her actions in performing or not performing marriages is immaterial. She has expressed a bias. She should be removed.

IOW you can't explain it. You laid out a claim now back it up. Do you even know what bias is?


By the way, judges are free to be biased if they choose, they are even free to disagree with a law if they wish, what they are NOT free to do is let those biases interfere with their official duties.

You fail

again.

 

[Immanuel]

He's paid to perform that service.

He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.

blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages.

True, but it would seem you either didn't perform them at all or for all. Up hold the law, all that.

In this case, she does not perform them at all.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I too, practice the pre-emptive argument. It's quite good for outing the nutballs, and the intellectually lazy knee-jerkers.

This site's going to take some getting used to on my part. The last board I was a member of the people who posted actually read the threads and links within the threads that they were commenting on. It seems to me many here don't believe in having INFORMED opinions.

Sad, but I'm sure I'll adjust and be posting when I have no idea what I'm talking about in no time.

A lot of times, I will comment either with a joke or a gut reaction and then after reading some of the ongoing discussion, if the thread seems interesting I'll go read the article. I don't always read the article first. I'll read what's presented in the OP, but I won't go read the entire article.

Immie

Okay, but this thread is 18 pages long now and people are still denying things that a simple cursory glance at the thread should confirm. That's just arguing to be arguing , not caring about the honesty of the debate at all.

 

[Si modo]

I'm a whiner because I would prefer to have conversation where people either inform themselves of the topic or shut up?

Hmmm okay I'll take that hit I guess. How sad.

I have preferences as well. But, after some time here, I know when to stop banging my head against a brick wall and just move on.

I already acknowledged that I would probably adjust and just start posting gibberish without actually reading the topic, but until then I'm pretty opinionated about preferring intelligent debate, and that's hardly whining.

I mean seriously, how many people in this thread have posted some dumb opinion that they obviously would not have formulated if they had only read the thread before commenting.

I have no problem with calling the idiots exactly what they are.

But, whining about rules you want to see here belongs somewhere else, if you are as interested in discussion as you say you are. And, I will fight against your desire for restrictions on speech here, BTW.

But, not here. I'll just call you a whiner about it.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I have preferences as well. But, after some time here, I know when to stop banging my head against a brick wall and just move on.

I already acknowledged that I would probably adjust and just start posting gibberish without actually reading the topic, but until then I'm pretty opinionated about preferring intelligent debate, and that's hardly whining.

I mean seriously, how many people in this thread have posted some dumb opinion that they obviously would not have formulated if they had only read the thread before commenting.

I have no problem with calling the idiots exactly what they are.

But, whining about rules you want to see here belongs somewhere else, if you are as interested in discussion as you say you are. And, I will fight against your desire for restrictions on speech here, BTW.

But, not here. I'll just call you a whiner about it.

Call me what you will. It doesn't matter. We both know I wasn't whining.

Sorry to hear you would fight against upping the level of discourse though. I actually would have thought that something you would favor.

Now, back to the topic.

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't find it objectionable that she expressed her opinion and here is one reason why.

Say I was about to appear as a defendant in her court and she had made a comment about hating short (under 5'9"), bald white men and that whenever they appear before her, she throws the book at them. Well, I'd rather know that before I appear before her than after. Wouldn't you want to know if a judge's biases affected you?

Immie

The judge has given an indication that he or she cannot follow the oath of office and needs to be removed from the bench for the protection of the unwary or unwitting. All kinds of personal decisions of judges are subject to bias review. If a judge belongs to an all white country club it's evidence of bias. Without even giving a speech on the subject.

If a judge said "I don't care what the law says, I'm not performing marriages for gays and lesbians". Everyone would understand that this judge needs to be removed from the bench because this personal opinion cannot be separated from judicial opinions. The judge has stated flatly that he will not follow the law.

Again, the judge is not required to perform marriages.

Do you think that a judge belonging to an all white country club would be removed from the bench? How about one that belongs to the Augusta National Golf Club. Now, I may be wrong on which club it is, but, I think this is the one that faced some controversy recently because it does not allow women members. Would a judge belonging to Augusta be removed from the bench? How about a female judge belonging to NOW? Maybe all Catholic judges should be removed from the bench? Mormons? Would any Muslim judges be removed from the bench? You know, a judge who belongs to the 700 Club can't be trusted to judge gay people fairly, they should be removed from the bench!

You are wrong on this Katz.

Immie

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

 

[Si modo]

I already acknowledged that I would probably adjust and just start posting gibberish without actually reading the topic, but until then I'm pretty opinionated about preferring intelligent debate, and that's hardly whining.

I mean seriously, how many people in this thread have posted some dumb opinion that they obviously would not have formulated if they had only read the thread before commenting.

I have no problem with calling the idiots exactly what they are.

But, whining about rules you want to see here belongs somewhere else, if you are as interested in discussion as you say you are. And, I will fight against your desire for restrictions on speech here, BTW.

But, not here. I'll just call you a whiner about it.

Call me what you will. It doesn't matter. We both know I wasn't whining.

Sorry to hear you would fight against upping the level of discourse though.

....

Only, that's not what I said. But, it's adorable that you think so, just like he's adorable:

.... I actually would have thought that something you would favor.

Now, back to the topic.

Good.

 

[Immanuel]

This site's going to take some getting used to on my part. The last board I was a member of the people who posted actually read the threads and links within the threads that they were commenting on. It seems to me many here don't believe in having INFORMED opinions.

Sad, but I'm sure I'll adjust and be posting when I have no idea what I'm talking about in no time.

A lot of times, I will comment either with a joke or a gut reaction and then after reading some of the ongoing discussion, if the thread seems interesting I'll go read the article. I don't always read the article first. I'll read what's presented in the OP, but I won't go read the entire article.

Immie

Okay, but this thread is 18 pages long now and people are still denying things that a simple cursory glance at the thread should confirm. That's just arguing to be arguing , not caring about the honesty of the debate at all.

Well, this was one of the interesting ones. I went back and read the article. But at first, I assumed the judge was a he. Didn't take long for me to find out otherwise.

A lot of people such as Saveliberty are just now entering the thread and may very well do what I do... gut reaction, read a few comments either read the article or move on. I usually don't look at the length of the thread when I pop in and will comment on one of the early posts only to find out that my post ended up on page 22 of the thread and thirty other people have already made similar comments to mine.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The judge has given an indication that he or she cannot follow the oath of office and needs to be removed from the bench for the protection of the unwary or unwitting. All kinds of personal decisions of judges are subject to bias review. If a judge belongs to an all white country club it's evidence of bias. Without even giving a speech on the subject.

If a judge said "I don't care what the law says, I'm not performing marriages for gays and lesbians". Everyone would understand that this judge needs to be removed from the bench because this personal opinion cannot be separated from judicial opinions. The judge has stated flatly that he will not follow the law.

Again, the judge is not required to perform marriages.

Do you think that a judge belonging to an all white country club would be removed from the bench? How about one that belongs to the Augusta National Golf Club. Now, I may be wrong on which club it is, but, I think this is the one that faced some controversy recently because it does not allow women members. Would a judge belonging to Augusta be removed from the bench? How about a female judge belonging to NOW? Maybe all Catholic judges should be removed from the bench? Mormons? Would any Muslim judges be removed from the bench? You know, a judge who belongs to the 700 Club can't be trusted to judge gay people fairly, they should be removed from the bench!

You are wrong on this Katz.

Immie

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

You're wrong. A judge is certainly free to join the KKK if they wish. They of course can't and shouldn't be committing crimes and certainly the voters would probably vote them out if it became known, but as long as in their rulings they didn't show their bias, there is no issue.

Oh and of course they would have to recuse themselves if a case involving the KKK or any of its members came before them.

 

[Immanuel]

The judge has given an indication that he or she cannot follow the oath of office and needs to be removed from the bench for the protection of the unwary or unwitting. All kinds of personal decisions of judges are subject to bias review. If a judge belongs to an all white country club it's evidence of bias. Without even giving a speech on the subject.

If a judge said "I don't care what the law says, I'm not performing marriages for gays and lesbians". Everyone would understand that this judge needs to be removed from the bench because this personal opinion cannot be separated from judicial opinions. The judge has stated flatly that he will not follow the law.

Again, the judge is not required to perform marriages.

Do you think that a judge belonging to an all white country club would be removed from the bench? How about one that belongs to the Augusta National Golf Club. Now, I may be wrong on which club it is, but, I think this is the one that faced some controversy recently because it does not allow women members. Would a judge belonging to Augusta be removed from the bench? How about a female judge belonging to NOW? Maybe all Catholic judges should be removed from the bench? Mormons? Would any Muslim judges be removed from the bench? You know, a judge who belongs to the 700 Club can't be trusted to judge gay people fairly, they should be removed from the bench!

You are wrong on this Katz.

Immie

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

I have an honest question I would like you to answer here.

Have you missed the point that this judge IS NOT required to perform marriages?

Another honest question:

Is the judge not trustworthy because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

You and I generally agree on things, but in this case, I am sorry to say, but you are way off base.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Again, the judge is not required to perform marriages.

Do you think that a judge belonging to an all white country club would be removed from the bench? How about one that belongs to the Augusta National Golf Club. Now, I may be wrong on which club it is, but, I think this is the one that faced some controversy recently because it does not allow women members. Would a judge belonging to Augusta be removed from the bench? How about a female judge belonging to NOW? Maybe all Catholic judges should be removed from the bench? Mormons? Would any Muslim judges be removed from the bench? You know, a judge who belongs to the 700 Club can't be trusted to judge gay people fairly, they should be removed from the bench!

You are wrong on this Katz.

Immie

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

You're wrong. A judge is certainly free to join the KKK if they wish. They of course can't and shouldn't be committing crimes and certainly the voters would probably vote them out if it became known, but as long as in their rulings they didn't show their bias, there is no issue.

Oh and of course they would have to recuse themselves if a case involving the KKK or any of its members came before them.

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

Judges are not required to perform marriages.

True, but it would seem you either didn't perform them at all or for all. Up hold the law, all that.

Jesus Christ, another person who is weighing in with an opinion who hasn't even read the thread?


She is refusing to perform ANY marriage. She does NOT pick and choose.

See now I know that and saved myself several pages of reading. Note it does not change my position one bit. You clearly have not read my posts. I'm not Jesus Christ, peace to you none the less.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

You're wrong. A judge is certainly free to join the KKK if they wish. They of course can't and shouldn't be committing crimes and certainly the voters would probably vote them out if it became known, but as long as in their rulings they didn't show their bias, there is no issue.

Oh and of course they would have to recuse themselves if a case involving the KKK or any of its members came before them.

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

If not, that is what the appellate courts are for.

Some seem to believe judges should be some sort of automatons with no opinions or outside interests though. Just weird.

 

[Immanuel]

You're wrong. A judge is certainly free to join the KKK if they wish. They of course can't and shouldn't be committing crimes and certainly the voters would probably vote them out if it became known, but as long as in their rulings they didn't show their bias, there is no issue.

Oh and of course they would have to recuse themselves if a case involving the KKK or any of its members came before them.

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

If not, that is what the appellate courts are for.

Some seem to believe judges should be some sort of automatons with no opinions or outside interests though. Just weird.

There is, however, whether written or unwritten I do not know or care, a rule that judges are supposed to keep their opinions to themselves so that they cannot be accused of bias.

It is my opinion that this rule is utterly ridiculous and needs to be changed.

I refuse to vote for judges in my county because they are forbidden from telling us what they think on certain issues. How can I vote for Judge so and so, if I don't know what his opinion is on issues of law that affect me and the county/state?

Immie

 

[bodecea]

Here is where you are wrong. A judge who belonged to one of these organizations went to that organization and EXPRESSED a bias toward the ends of that organization should be and most likely would be removed from the bench. IF the law was that same sex marriage was legal, and a judge who belonged to the 700 club appeared before the 700 Club and said that he or she was going to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies at all until the law was changed to prohibit same sex marriages should this judge remain? Of course not.

The judge should be removed not only because the expressed bias might influence the judge in cases involving homosexuals, but because the judge allows personal biases to influence that judge's actions. The judge has proven to be untrustworthy period.

You're wrong. A judge is certainly free to join the KKK if they wish. They of course can't and shouldn't be committing crimes and certainly the voters would probably vote them out if it became known, but as long as in their rulings they didn't show their bias, there is no issue.

Oh and of course they would have to recuse themselves if a case involving the KKK or any of its members came before them.

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

Might want to ask Justice Scalia about that one.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You're wrong. A judge is certainly free to join the KKK if they wish. They of course can't and shouldn't be committing crimes and certainly the voters would probably vote them out if it became known, but as long as in their rulings they didn't show their bias, there is no issue.

Oh and of course they would have to recuse themselves if a case involving the KKK or any of its members came before them.

They would be required to recuse themselves. The question is would they.

Immie

Might want to ask Justice Scalia about that one.

I'm fairly certain His Honor would agree that a KKK member should recuse himself from a case involving the KKK.

 

[saveliberty]

Why does the OP say the judge won't perform straight marriages, when this judge doesn't perform them at all?

 

[bodecea]

Why does the OP say the judge won't perform straight marriages, when this judge doesn't perform them at all?

Because there are no gay marriages to perform in TX. Why mention something that can't be done anyways?


I do want to add, I am enjoying this thread immensely.